[doubloon]

the difference between new york times and a independent creator journalism is that the NYT can fund a huge legal department to defend free speech inside the court system. Its why the major free speech cases like NYT v Sullivan have the NYT in the name.

There is never, ever going to be an equivalent case with big tech ("Google V Sullivan") because Google does care what happens to youtube creators, and they are not liable because thanks to section 230 they are not a publisher. Google do not care if any youtuber get sued out of existence by the government or the powerful. Same for Wikipedia, Wikipedia is never going to be involved in a major free speech case because thanks to section 230 they have no legal liability for what others post on their site. Same for Facebook, Twitch, Twitter, all of them. Big Tech media has absolutely zero protections for any of the journalism done on them.

That is why big cases like Weinstein are still done by the NYT and The New Yorker.

[aldousd666]

If there was legal liability for user comments, this site right here couldn't host a comment section. And you'd have to use a publisher to complain about how hard it is to be a publisher